Prime Locations of CT, LLC v. Rocky Hill Development, LLC
145 A.3d 317
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Coles Brook Commerce Park Declarant recorded a declaration creating an Owners Association, voting rights proportional to lot interests, and a Design Review Committee to approve building plans and prohibit offensive uses.
- In 2012, MPM (lot 2 owner), Rocky Hill Development (lot 1), and Rescue One (lot 7) recorded an amendment purporting to withdraw lots 1, 2, and 7 from the Owners Association; those three claimed 54.15% of votes.
- DiMaria (purchaser from MPM of lot 2) proposed to build a crematorium; the Design Review Committee denied approval under the declaration’s use restrictions (§6.3).
- Plaintiffs (other lot owners) sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the August 1, 2012 amendment was invalid for multiple statutory and procedural reasons and sought to enjoin construction on lot 2 without committee approval.
- Trial court ruled the amendment invalid because the declaration did not allow removal/withdrawal of lots or owners, and enjoined DiMaria from further construction without Design Review Committee approval.
- On appeal, defendants raised (1) lack of standing because §8.1 of the declaration expressly names only Declarant and the Owners Association as enforcement parties, and (2) that the trial court decided the case on a theory not pleaded or argued (i.e., that owners may not withdraw from the Association). The appellate court reversed for the second reason and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to enforce declaration covenants | Individual lot owners may enforce restrictions because declaration’s preamble says covenants run with the lots and uniform-development doctrine allows grantees to enforce against other grantees | §8.1 limits enforcement to Declarant and the Owners Association; therefore plaintiffs lack standing | Court held plaintiffs had standing; denial of postjudgment dismissal for lack of standing was proper (standing flows from declaration + uniform covenant doctrine) |
| Validity of amendment withdrawing lots from Association | Amendment invalid for failing to comply with statutory amendment/vote requirements (insufficient votes, §47-236/§47-252 issues) | Amendment valid because defendants held >50% votes and recorded amendment | Trial court invalidated the amendment, but appellate court found the specific ground the trial court relied on (that declaration forbids withdrawal) was not pleaded or argued and cannot stand; judgment reversed and remanded for new trial |
| Court deciding unpleaded theory (withdrawal prohibited) | Declaratory relief is broad; court may decide issues necessary to resolve rights even if not framed exactly in pleadings | Trial court cannot decide case on a theory neither pleaded nor litigated; doing so violates notice and fairness | Appellate court agreed with defendants that the trial court based decision on a theory not pleaded or argued (court acted sua sponte contrary to plaintiffs’ pleaded theory); reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantonbury Heights Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Local Land Dev., LLC, 273 Conn. 724 (analysis of contract interpretation principles)
- Harbour Pointe, LLC v. Harbour Landing Condominium Assn., Inc., 300 Conn. 254 (context on common-interest/declaration interpretation)
- Pulver v. Mascolo, 155 Conn. 644 (doctrine that restrictive covenants run with the land and limitations on implied extensions)
- Castonguay v. Plourde, 46 Conn. App. 251 (enforceability of restrictive covenants under uniform development scheme)
- Styslinger v. Brewster Park, LLC, 321 Conn. 312 (standing doctrine overview)